In other news today, in Lane v. Holder, the appellees (plaintiffs) filed their opening brief in the 4th Circuit.

While the PDF is 74 pages in length, about 22 pages are headers and appendices. So in roughly 52 pages, Mr. Gura sets out a very well reasoned argument in favor of doing away with the ban on interstate handgun transfers. A copy of the brief is in this thread.

Back on 09-14, the defendant was given an extension of time to reply to the Second Amended Complaint in Enos v. Holder. The expected result of todays filing? A MTD. See this thread.

It amazes me that it is very often in Christian circles wherein one hears arguments for law that somehow saves people. When you read the pastors comments in this article they somehow really believe that a law prohibiting the activity of carrying in a Church actually does something other than provide a mechanism for a judicial penalty to be imposed. They find their beliefs assaulted on every front, doctrines that are foundational for American jurisprudence itself, and then turn around and stand against the very principles they claim to believe in. Its just so sad that Churches that should be equipping Christian soldiers to do spiritual battle don't see the necessity for sustaining the ability to engage physical self defense once those spiritual forces break out into overt violence. There's been numerous instances over the years where gunmen have entered Churches and shot people - I would hope there would be a parishioner or two in every congregation that has the effective means of employing defense against that potential threat.

In the last 2 days, a fairly new member over at MDShooters opined on a couple of subjects. MirandaB claims to be a former civil rights attorney, in private practice for 10 years before starting another business, Just Right Carbines.

First MirandaB explained what was wrong with the Williams case and why the Supreme Court probably denied cert.

Then today, this person explained the Masciandaro case and why it might be granted cert.

The explanations go into a bit of depth on both cases, but this gentleman uses plain (non-legalese) language to get his points across. If you are at all interested in this stuff, I believe it is worth your while to read these explanations.

If these won't show, try this thread. Williams is post #14 (page 1) and Masciandaro is post #22 (page 2).

I'm sure our resident attorneys can read this man's posts and glean from them whether or not the guy is being truthful. Just because they ring right to my ears, doesn't mean a thing. I'm not an attorney, just a somewhat knowledgeable commentator.

The question presented is whether a state court can impose a categorical weapons ban – forbidding use, possession and even ownership of a firearm – as a condition of probation for a nonviolent misdemeanor offense without engaging in any level of constitutional means-end scrutiny of the restriction on the Second Amendment right.

Dr. Chein's attorney, Tarik S. Adlai, goes into detail on how the circuits are split in applying scrutiny (in 2A cases), in an attempt to further his clients case.

Quote:

Petitioner Edmund Chein’s case presents a good vehicle for resolving this issue. A 59 year old medical doctor with no prior criminal record, Dr. Chein was convicted of misdemeanor vandalism after he used a folding pocket knife to deflate the tires of an automobile that had repeatedly trespassed on his property, before calling for the assistance of the authorities. When sentencing him to a three-year term of probation, the California trial court imposed a categorical ban forbidding Dr. Chein to “own, use or possess any dangerous or deadly weapons, including any firearms” during the term of probation for his nonviolent misdemeanor offense. App. 3a, 8a. As the owner of several handguns kept for self-defense – as well as irreplaceable rare, antique or collectible firearms – Dr. Chein is being deprived of his Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for self-defense and other lawful purposes while this condition remains in effect.

Former SG Paul Clement (you remember him? He argued for the Feds against Heller and 2 years later argued for the NRA in McDonald) has just taken over the Peruta case. See the discussion thread for details.

I stumbled upon another nugget of Guraism while reading the latest reply to DC's notice of supplemental authority in the Palmer case. I thought you all might get a kick out of it.

Quote:

The Supreme Court has rejected the Alice in Wonderland approach
to statutory interpretation.... (“‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean
neither more nor less’”)....

On the note of the Palmer case, DC is attempting to site the Kachalsky case. The response put forth by Grua pretty much rips that appart and he filed another Notice of Supplemental using Heller II.

Thanks for the welcome Al, I have been lurking so long I figured I might be able to help catch things that fell through the cracks. With the tidal wave of cases, it would seem hard for one person to keep up with them all. I am surprised you are able to keep it all straight.

A person can do a check of the Internet Archives for the case to see when the last update was made. If it been longer than the docket schedule shows something should have happened, then the link to the Justia Summary provides the gate into PACER for that case.

There's the added benefit that anyone who wants to volunteer, can do everything I'm doing.

Did you notice that the NC case, Bateman v. Perdue has been updated?

Nothing since last March, now all of a sudden the Judge orders discovery, despite the fact that two MSJ's (#44 and #52) are still pending! This case will get drug out, much like Chicago is doing in Benson.

Krucam, over at MDShooters, checked out that one.

Then there's a couple of folks over at CalGuns.net who are helping things out.

So what I do, is to keep a calendar filled out as to what's supposed to happen, and then check MDShooters to see if krucam has already gotten it (MD is 2 hours ahead of ID). Right now, we are both running about $100 per quarter in PACER charges.

I debated if I should post it up, the case itself isn't aimed at 2A very much, however I thought I would throw it out there. Mostly because if they bungle it bad enough it could get some bad precedent our way.

Winters denied Willis a concealed handgun license in 2008 on the grounds that she uses medical marijuana, considered a controlled substance by the federal government. The sheriff argued that he couldn't give the license to Willis because that would violate the Gun Control Act of 1968. Winters has lost every court case so far, including the Oregon Supreme Court.

This email link is to reach site administrators for assistance, if you cannot access TFL via other means. If you are a TFL member and can access TFL, please do not use this link; instead, use the forums (like Questions, Suggestions, and Tech Support) or PM an appropriate mod or admin.

If you are experiencing difficulties posting in the Buy/Sell/Trade subforums of TFL, please read the "sticky" announcement threads at the top of the applicable subforum. If you still feel you are qualified to post in those subforums, please contact "Shane Tuttle" (the mod for that portion of TFL) via Private Message for assistance.

This email contact address is not an "Ask the Firearms Expert" service. Such emails will be ignored. If you have a firearm related question, please register and post it on the forums.